The Four Color Media Monitor

Screenwriter and onetime comics writer David Goyer was interviewed by the Hollywood Reporter about newer adaptations he's been involved with, which now include less superhero-connected titles like Sandman. Predictably, he sugarcoats the Big Two's editorial management:

DC has had some ups and downs in recent years, especially compared to Marvel. If you were running DC—

Which I’d never want to do.

But let’s say you were. What moves would you make next?

I think one of the issues is that Marvel’s had consistent leadership for the last 15 years or more, whereas DC hasn’t. There have been all of these changes in terms of who is running DC. That is fundamentally very hard. It’s hard to make any headway when leadership is changing. One of the other things that’s made Marvel incredibly successful is all of their adaptations are true to the source material. Ant-Man feels like Ant-Man. The Hulk feels like the Hulk. They don’t try to change things up. I would say, try to hew closer to what was the original intent. So, it’s having a consistent universe, having consistent leadership and staying true to the source material.

If we're talking about the publishing arms, he's doing little more than alluding to business management, which isn't the same as artistic vision, yet even that hasn't been very good at either one, if you consider the moratorium once imposed on Fantastic Four comics several years ago, because Isaac Perlmutter once demanded it. And as for the cinematic material, does Captain Marvel feel like Ms. Marvel? Nope, and hasn't for at least a decade now, ever since the character fell hostage to PC mandates. Why, from what I've studied of the story synopses in a few other Marvel movies, one could reasonably wonder if it's really true they stick closer to the source material, and the upcoming projects are turning it more farcical with the way they're embarking on political agendas in the Eternals, to name but one example.

Goyer goes on to claim he believes in remaining faithful to IP source material:

You’ve been involved in a lot of projects where there were many big egos on board and a ton of studio pressure. How do you handle a situation where you believe strongly something is the right move and others believe differently?

I hope I’ve developed a reputation now for speaking with candor, for being honest. My go-to is always “what works for the story.” And if I’m adapting an IP, like a comic book, I don’t try to turn it into something it’s not. Because if you do, no matter what, even if you have the best of intentions, it will definitely not work out. So there were times when I’ve been involved in projects when I’ve actually advocated that the studio not make it. I’ve said, “It’s going to fail. It’s not worth the money.” I’ve talked myself out of movies and TV shows being made before.

Really? Because there's an item or two in this interview making room for dispute. For example, how Sandman was/is to be handled:

Well, I have to ask: What’s an example of that?

I will say one was a previous iteration of Sandman. It was a feature.

Was this the script that Neil Gaiman famously declared was “not only the worst Sandman script I’ve ever seen, but quite easily the worst script I’ve ever read”?

Fortunately, no. I was trying to get Warner Bros. to do a streaming serialized show and they wanted to do it as a feature instead. So Neil and I worked on a feature, and through the various iterations, it just kept subtly getting more and more deformed, and shifting more and more away from the true north. Finally, we just said, “Guys, please let’s stop, please kill it, let’s do it as a streaming show.” Eventually, they did.

Depending how you view this, Gaiman's own questionable faith in his very own story makes one wonder if there's much meat to this defense. Although, the following provides even more reason to wonder if Goyer really means what he says:

We heard Bridgerton breakout Regé-Jean Page was up for the role of Superman’s grandfather in your Krypton series, but that [DC president] Geoff Johns nixed it, saying Superman couldn’t have a Black grandfather. Also, that a proposal for Adam Strange being gay or bisexual was rejected. True?

All I will say on this is that I was the one who wanted to cast Page. I thought he was amazing. I thought his audition was amazing. I advocated very hard to cast him in that role. I thought he was a fantastic actor back then and he continues to be a fantastic actor. I wanted him to play Superman’s grandfather.

Even if these are grandparents we're talking about, the problem is that it does sound rather politically motivated to make the grandfather black, and some could argue whether it's plausible for parents created by Siegel/Shuster as white humanoids to have black parents in turn, and not be of any mixed background. And what if there's any distortions here, and the real intention was originally to make Kal-El's father Jor-El black instead of white? Though if they intended to force the LGBT ideology upon Adam Strange, possibly at the expense of his otherworldly lover Alanna, that's certainly sad, if no longer shocking.

All that said, I'm not forgetting Johns was one of the worst omens to ever litter the comics scene, and he injected his own political biases into Green Lantern nearly a decade ago, which was repellent. So if this flap hurt his reputation, I'm not feeling sorry for him. To some extent, he's experiencing what others who claim SJW status are: getting all but dumped by the others. I can guess why he balked at casting a black grandpa for Superman, though: most screenwriters a decade ago who'd worked in comicdom, as Johns and Goyer both did, likely preferred to avoid taking steps that could be viewed as politically motivated on the live action screen because it could earn them criticism as absurdly pandering ideologues. Until recently, that's how commercialism worked. By contrast, they saw fit to espouse any leftist propaganda back in comics proper, under the confidence less audience and press were likely to notice and criticize, because who cares about animated art as compared to live action? Such has been the sad reality for many years.

I also noticed some strong hints at Goyer's politics came up, and he'd held these views for many years:

There’s a fan letter that’s made the rounds online in a 1986 Captain America comic book that’s signed “Dave Goyer” that pointed out the inherent philosophical problems caused by Cap embracing unquestioning patriotism — it’s basically pitching the central conflict of Captain America: Civil War decades in advance. Please tell me this was really you when you were a young man.

That’s real. I think it was during the Mark Gruenwald run. I wrote about six or seven letters to comics and they were all published. I also have a letter in one of Alan Moore’s Swamp Things.

First, the editor's response to the letter points out that past writers depicted Cap as anything but loyalty unquestioned. But it does make clear Goyer was jumping to conclusions on the one hand, as only a really absurd leftist could, and when he speaks of finding more interest in the villains than the heroes, that too is irritating, because it reflects a problem I'd noticed in some alleged readers, including, but not limited to, the Batman readers. This is not representative of a healthy mindset. At worst, it reflects somebody who can't at least appreciate the simplest story merit based on escapist and entertainment value. Besides, as is apparent today, if there's any kind of government TPTB do not want Steve Rogers and his co-stars embracing unquestioned, it's a conservative-leaning one, which I'm guessing Goyer wouldn't want either.

And let's not forget the stink Goyer once caused after he belittled She-Hulk and Martian Manhunter a decade ago in a podcast interview with a video game producer, and may still not regret his divisive Superman tale where Kal-El forfeited US citizenship. This is why I don't consider him a very impressive screenwriter, as it's pretty apparent he's too much of an ideologue, and even his respect for Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, among other past famous contributors, is questionable at worst. Why would somebody who's a fan of Kirby really want his most famous creation for Marvel to steer away from being a patriot, as has been seen for years already? It didn't even begin with Civil War, but that was certainly one of the worst catalysts for the political disaster mainstream superhero comics have become. Yet Goyer doesn't seem to care. At least now, he may be moving away from superhero adaptations, which'll hopefully lose ground in the future to non-comic films, though with the way the whole movie industry is going these days, it won't be long before they collapse.

Labels: Captain America, dc comics, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Superman

We have here two examples on social media, one propagandistic and the other plain ignorant, who're responding, one to the new film based on the Suicide Squad comics and the other directly to her, whose comments can certainly quite a bit what's wrong with this picture. First, far-leftist Heidi MacDonald:

Saw THE Suicide Squad today and loved it. @JamesGunn has made a dark, violent movie that somehow has more heart than almost any superhero movie I can think of. I couldn’t love Margot Robbie as Harley any more. #TheSuicideSquad pic.twitter.com/pXux8Kcq47

— Heidi MacDonald (@Comixace) July 16, 2021

What's disturbing here is MacDonald's embrace of darkness, violence and villainy, in a way that sounds very deliberately spoken at the expense of superhero movies proper. No consideration that director Gunn said stuff that was truly repellent in the past decade on social media either, yet in sharp contrast to Roseanne Barr, he was rehired by both WB and Disney pretty quickly. All which meant nothing to Jim Lee, who replied with the following:

Means a lot coming from you, Heidi! Agreed on all points! 👍👍👍 https://t.co/K5o4NQUAtE

— Jim Lee (@JimLee) July 16, 2021

Seems the crowd most likely to credit this unbearable woman the most are higher ups at publishers, or veterans with no clue how to judge by character, who really believe she's an expert on the medium, this despite all the harm she's done over the years working in news. Lee really is an ignoramus if he thinks her drivel has meaning to it.

All this is reason enough to avoid the new Suicide Squad sequel, mainly because it's yet another example of elevating a villainess like Harley Quinn to a status better suited to heroes. I may have said this before, and will again: I can't stand the way Margot Robbie does that evil grin of hers in the role of HQ, and that too is enough to convince me such a movie was a waste of resources.

Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics

Deadline Hollywood's reporting the latest Marvel movie to undergo PC tinkering has seen a drop at the box office:

The studio’s Marvel Cinematic Universe standalone origin movie Black Widow had a great fall in its second session at the domestic B.O., down -67%, with $26.25M. Black Widow lost No. 1 to Warner Bros. day-and-date theatrical HBO Max release of Space Jam: A New Legacy, which opened to $31.65M.

If you want to know what the negative impact is by having a Marvel movie available in homes and in theaters at the same time, well, here it is: That’s the steepest second weekend drop ever for a Disney-distributed MCU title, beating Ant-Man and the Wasp (-62%).

The sum Space Jam's sequel took in isn't great either, but this does suggest Marvel's movie machine is waning in popularity, and even the home viewing option may not be serving them well financially either, much as they've tried to make it sound as though it is. If the box office recipts turn out to be mediocre, I won't care. It's clear the whole Marvel film franchise is bound to lose direction sooner or later, and the politics the filmmakers are putting in pretty much confirm that.

Speaking of the sequel to Warner Brothers' late-90s combination of animation with live action, Digital Spy reported that one of the voice actors for Speedy Gonzales in the film, Gabriel Iglesias, has addressed controversy surrounding Pepe Le Pew, whose cameo in the sequel film was cut simply because modern PC advocates dictate his unwanted pursuits of Penelope Pussycat were literal glorification of sexual harassment. Unsurprisingly, the actor seems to take a weak stance:

The film's star Gabriel Iglesias – who voices Speedy Gonzales – has now responded to the controversial decision to cut the character and the nature of Pepé Le Pew in an interview with CinePOP.

"You know, years ago growing up watching the cartoons, I just think it was a different time and you don't see things the same way. Times change, views change and for the time I can't say that I ever saw it in a negative light," said Iglesias.

"But based on the climate of today, alright I get it, I see it, okay. It was one of those things where it's a change of times. I don't think that people would intentionally try to make something that was inappropriate. But again, times change and we need to evolve and so unfortunately the character was cut."

So he's throwing the anthropomorphic skunk under the bus, in contrast to Speedy, and not willing to argue Pepe's actions were more or less depicted negatively, and he usually paid the price by winding up the butt of the jokes? Too bad. And now, the film may not be doing well in box office receipts anyway. Let's not forget how the film inexplicably left the Clockwork Orange cameos intact by contrast, proving the studio really is that sloppy. And that's why I'm not going to feel sorry if this cartoon-with-live-action fare tanks in a few weeks as well.

If there's anything to learn here, it's that Hollywood sure is losing its way these days, throwing creative freedom to the winds, and can't seem to decide what kind of audience they want to seek anymore. The two above films are perfect examples of this.

Labels: animation, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics

The Indiana Gazette ran one of Andrew Smith's puff pieces about the botch job the live action Marvel screen adaptations have led to back in the comics, and what a surprise, he's defending the forced removal of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver's mutancy from canon in the past 5 years:

But in the comics, she isn’t exactly Miss Popularity on the sentient island Krakoa, where all of Earth’s mutants now live.

That’s because for many years — well, from her introduction in 1964 to 2016 — Wanda thought she was a mutant. Not only that, but from 1983 to 2015, she thought she was Magneto’s daughter … and so did he!

But that was temporary.

It turns out that when the Fantastic Four and X-Men were the cinematic property of Twentieth Century Fox, those characters found themselves being minimized in the comics. And characters like Wanda and her brother Pietro were de-mutantized so they could be used by Marvel Studios.

“Scarlet Witch” #11 (2016) established that the two were never Magneto’s children, but instead gained superpowers from genetic tinkering by Marvel baddie the High Evolutionary. Which is why all the mutants on Krakoa call her “The Pretender.”

But worse, Wanda had a mental breakdown in 2005 and used her powers to remove the powers of 90 percent of Earth’s mutants. Those that happened to be, say, in flight or underwater or something … well, they died. The survivors, suddenly powerless, were none too happy.

Hmm, how come no objective commentary on whether the tale was good or bad? So pathetic how these news propagandists pretend this is real life, and obscure all the lazy approaches to writing. No matter how reversible these directions are, it doesn't make them tasteful to begin with.

So all those mutants Wanda killed are back (or most of ’em, anyway), and boy, do they hate her. Even if what she did wasn’t permanent.

And give her a break, guys: She did try to revive a few million dead mutants on the island of Genosha, but only succeeded in creating millions of mutant zombies. (Don’t think about it.)

Well if the only way she's revived dead mutants is through zombification, as though this were a George Romero horror flick, that's not fulfilling the real deal, is it? But he sure must think it's such fun seeing all the mutants hate-hate-hate upon Wanda, judging from his sensationalistic writing. After talking about how Magneto continues, in the new pseudo-canon, to treat Wanda as his daughter, Smith continues to describe the following:

But then how come Wanda’s dead body is found the following week in “X-Factor” #10? We don’t know the hows and whys, but she is not only dead, she is most sincerely dead. The last we saw of her alive she was with Magneto, and um … oh, dear. Maybe “I will do what I must” isn’t entirely a good thing when it’s uttered by a guy who’s spent most of his adult life as a supervillain.

Of course, we don’t know that Magneto did it. Although Wolverine’s reaction demonstrates that he thinks so. Add to that, next month will see the first issue of a five-issue miniseries titled “The Trial of Magneto.”

So we’re definitely supposed to think Magneto did it. And I think he did. And why would he kill a woman he regards as his daughter? Well, because of what he said: “I will do what I must to make things right.”

Well if the script establishes that he really did, that's disgusting. As is Logan's potentially violent reaction, which has got to be par for the course in these overblown events. Then Smith says:

So that’s my cunning deduction. Or is it an induction? Anyway, I think Magneto killed her, and now will try to use his power and authority — he’s on the ruling council of the island — to have Wanda resurrected by The Five.

As. A. Mutant.

That's no excuse for Magneto slaying her, if he did in the story. And then, Smith gets worse with his views:

One is: If Wanda is modified to be a mutant going forward, you may ask, “What about her brother Pietro, aka Quicksilver”? To which I will reply, “Who cares?” Honestly, he’s a jerk.

The other is: I could be wrong. Maybe that’s not Magneto’s plan. Maybe he didn’t even kill her. But right now it’s not looking good for ol’ bucket-head.

Wow, more damning of fictional characters as though they're real, and as though it's their fault for being "jerks". And he doesn't complain how Magneto, for whatever established faults he had in the past, has here been turned into a pawn in some revolting game of Let's Kill The Beauty For Shock's Sake event. It's an gigantically noxious influence that's gone on too long, and besides, what about Dr. Strange and Spider-Man being put in the revolving-lid coffin to boot? Do we really need even that? Nope. This is some of the shoddiest apologia you can find in the mainstream press these days, that's been going on for far too long, and has utterly ruined mainstream comicdom.

Labels: Avengers, dreadful writers, golden calf of death, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, women of marvel, X-Men

The Federalist pointed to a short so-called Marvel tribute from the Simpsons producers, made to promote the Loki TV show, and again, we have a case of unfunny business at hand:

“This is what happens when Disney buys Marvel and Fox,” read a painted sign held by Arnold Schwarzenegger parody Rainier Wolfcastle in the Disney Plus animated short “The Good, The Bart, and the Loki.”

If you couldn’t guess, the July 7 feature was a crossover event between Marvel Studios and The Simpsons, both subsidiary properties of the Disney Company. The six-minute animated feature was created to promote the new “Loki” series on the Disney Plus streaming service, and that’s exactly how it feels.

Like any other multimillion-dollar corporate ad, it is soulless and vapid.

I've made the argument myself before, that corporatism and conglomeracy has long become a vapid, politically motivated machine, and this is just another example of how bad that's become.

It might elicit a wry chuckle when the morbidly obese Comic Book Guy appears as the speedster Quick Silver when the Springfield Avengers come to give Loki his comeuppance, or maybe a groan of morbid humor when Homer asks Loki to turn Ned Flanders into a pork chop so he can subsequently cannibalize his pious neighbor. But that’s pretty much it.

I think making jokes about cannibalism is pretty gross too. Yet such crudeness really began to affect the Simpsons as far back as 20 years ago, and if they're still employing the approach, it's a shame.

In 2009, The Walt Disney Company purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. In 2019, they acquired 21st Century Fox for $71.3 billion. With these acquisitions, Disney became the owner of some of the most lucrative and beloved intellectual property across the globe.

Undeservedly, as has since become clear, and did they do it make the products more palatable? Nope. Under their management, Marvel became a much more soulless machine than before, as seen at the time Axel Alonso was EIC. Now, the Simpsons is being used to make things worse for the universe Stan Lee worked so hard to develop.

Labels: animation, marvel comics, politics, violence

The Hollywood Reporter says there's professional writers who're speaking out about weak payments made by the Big Two for stories and characters they've written that became the basis of various blockbuster movies that came out since:

Marvel fans were flying high with the release of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, as the Disney+ series rose to top Nielsen’s closely watched streaming chart with 855 million minutes viewed during the April 12-18 frame. Yet one person fans were surprised to learn wasn’t watching was Ed Brubaker.

The comic book writer, who co-created the Winter Soldier character and whose work helped inspire $1 billion grossers like 2016’s Captain America: Civil War, made waves with a widely circulated interview in which he expressed dissatisfaction with his Winter Soldier pay. “I have made more on SAG residuals than I have made on creating the character,” Brubaker told Kevin Smith and Marc Bernardin on the Fatman Beyond podcast, referencing his cameo in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014). In May, Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose run on Black Panther comics helped the $1.2 billion- grossing Chadwick Boseman film get greenlit, backed Brubaker in an interview with Polygon, noting that he was fortunate not to depend on comics for a living. “I wish that Marvel found better ways to compensate the creators who helped make Black Panther Black Panther,” said Coates.

On the above, I have to ask: does Coates believe he's the only one who truly made T'Challa a household name? If he does, no surprise. Marvel and their press apologists have been lionizing writers like him for ages on end. If his BP material really did serve to build the movie, I think that's why we have one more cinematic example here that won't age well, and discourages me from watching.

But did Brubaker actually create "Winter Soldier"? If memory serves, isn't that Bucky Barnes? Kirby and Simon created Bucky, not Brubaker. So while I'm sure the argument has merit - there certainly are past writers whose works have yet to be reprinted in full for residuals - it's quite a stretch to say Brubaker created Winter Soldier, when it's actually just another codename applied to the resurrected Bucky. But seeing that's an article from the awful Comics Beat they cite, it's not surprising they'd make such a fuss using their questionable coverage as a basis for this.

Comic book history is full of stories of writers and artists who signed meager deals only to see their creations become icons, dating back to 1938, when Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster signed away the character for $130. But it was unusual to hear Brubaker and Coates, creators at the height of their careers, speak openly about the issue. It reignited a conversation about creator pay, and what obligation companies have to creators who signed contracts years before movies were grossing billions and media conglomerates were building streaming services on the backs of their characters.

There's a difference here. Siegel and Shuster created Superman, but Brubaker only conceived the codename given to Bucky when he retconned his death, and again, it was really Kirby/Simon who created Captain America's former sidekick, who's now a focus of politically motivated TV and film material. Brubaker also wrote certain stories built around these particular characters. He may be owed more money than he's gotten for writing the scripts. But again, to say he created the star characters is exaggerating his role. Though they do at least acknowledge:

Creators working at Marvel and DC sign work-for-hire contracts granting the publishers ownership over their characters and storylines. While it’s relatively simple to determine who gets compensation for a character, insiders familiar with Marvel and DC contracts note that it gets murky when it comes to storylines being adapted for film. There is no concrete policy at either company.

Here, they do have a valid point to offer. Should writers receive royalties for adapting their original scripts? I may not find Brubaker's work appealing (I thought a Batman crossover he co-wrote with Greg Rucka from 2002, Bruce Wayne: Murderer/Fugitive, was insulting to the intellect), but if royalies are owed for doing the original script, then certainly they should at least pay them a sum that's good enough.

Even so, Brubaker didn't set a good example by acting as though a character is his creation simply because he conceived a name for a new role the old character could take up. And seeing a writer as awful as Coates brought up here is really dispiriting.

Labels: dc comics, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda

The Valdosta Daily Times recently published a sugary take on one of Jason Aaron's overrated Avengers tales:

Writer Jason Aaron has had a remarkable run on "The Avengers."

The team has picked up intriguing new members such as Blade and Ghost Rider while keeping the Big Three of Captain America, Iron Man and Thor. And he's placed the team under the leadership of the Black Panther.

He's expanded the mythos of the Avengers to include a primordial team that formed a million years ago. He's pulled in the Celestials as part of that expanded history for not only the Avengers but to explain why there are so many super-powered beings on Earth in the Marvel Universe.

As an Avengers fan myself, but only of the material published up to the early 2000s, there was once a time I'd find appointing Black Panther team leader an impressive step. But under a writer as dreadfully overrated as Aaron really is, I can't see what's so great about what's being promoted here, when, with cast members like Blade and Ghost Rider shoehorned in, it merely channels the work of Brian Bendis, who put Spider-Man and Wolverine into the team through contrived circumstances. And who did a horrible disfavor to Scarlet Witch in Disassembled, before making things worse with House of M, among other crossovers. So why must we be excited for a story by one of Bendis' equally pretentious successors? And why does there need to this kind of explanation for having so many superbeings in the MCU? Surprisingly enough, the columnist admits Aaron's scripting has faults:

But several of the storylines have also been disjointed. Regular readers of "The Avengers" may feel like they need to buy other titles to better understand the story. And it's not always clear if those other titles even exist.

The "Enter the Phoenix" story arc is a mish-mash jumble of things happening, with little to no character development or even interaction other than a series of slugfests with each Avenger imbued with the cosmic Phoenix power to see who will be the new Phoenix.

Characters jump from one set piece to another then seem to return to the earlier situation with no real narrative explanation. People show up, they fight then disappear. There are too many characters with no character seeming to have any real personality to distinguish one from the other.

This is too bad.

At least here, the writer's doing something right, admitting Aaron's relied on a criminally overused storyline first concocted in X-Men around 1977-80, where Jean Grey seemingly gets imbued with a cosmic energy that subsequently drives her insane, and even, in what's surely one of the most outrageous premises in superhero history, travels across the galaxy and slaughters a billion aliens in a distant galaxy's planetary system. To think that as the years went by, this storyline, though retconned in 1985 to establish that a cosmic entity replaced Jean and was the real guilty culprit, would end up influencing later writers is just head-shaking. If I were a professional writer, I wouldn't want to draw "inspiration" from that. And character development vanished at Marvel long ago. I remember there was a time when some naive people believed it impossible for Marvel to be lacking in personality crafting, yet actually thought it impossible for DC provide any of the same, all without considering the writers are the foremost ones responsible for ensuring any at both publishers. Now, neither publisher has any to offer at all; just a whole lot of what's come to be known as identity politics.

Unfortunately, the columnist falls back on a sugarcoated view of Aaron as a scriptwriter:

Again, Aaron is a talented writer. He's done interesting things with the Avengers and he's had milestone runs on other titles such as "Thor."

The Phoenix story arc feels like it's part of a larger storyline but one that is not easily available or readily apparent to readers picking up this book that collects "Avengers" issues 39-45.

Phoenix is worthy of an epic. The Phoenix is a character deserving of the full attention of a team as mighty as the Avengers. But the concept deserved a more cohesive plot or more direction where readers should turn to make better sense of the story after investing in this collection.

Umm, wasn't Aaron the one who launched that tommyrot with Jane Foster taking over the role of Thor while still using his name? And one of the writers who came up with that laughable idea of Nick Fury turning male Thor "unworthy" by whispering something in his ear? I'm not impressed with this lazy lauding. Aaron told the press at the time that his run was about "worth", which is a pretty weak approach to built upon, when it's the worth of his own stories that should be foremost important, and his tales don't have any. Just incredibly dumb social justice ideology pandering.

And Phoenix worthy of an epic? The whole "classic" storyline has become so cliched it's insufferable, and I tend to look down my nose at many writers whose instinct is to rely on a story building upon mass deaths at the hands of a character we thought was supposed to be a goodie. Because that kind of storytelling has ruined superhero fare in the long run.

Labels: Avengers, dreadful writers, history, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, Thor, X-Men